Yeah I know.
How about if it's only considered to be thread-drift if someone replies in kind to the off-topic religion bit?

Better

I don't know. What would Jesus say?

'Get these bloody nails out of my hands'?

That's so 33 AD, technology has moved on

Well, finished it.

It's very short; it's exceptionally well written.

It's not a diatribe, but much more an investigation, couched largely in quiet and considered tones. There are barbs, but they are subtle and elegant.

I think it's excellent. And the subject isn't actually as limited as it might seem: Hitchens saw Mother Teresa as being someone who very much reflected and preached the Vatican's core ideology. Indeed, as he points out, it was extraordinary that she did preach, given Catholic teaching on women doing that.

There are some fascinating things. And, without him specifically saying so, it does raise the great question of why, when faced with – let's call it religion in general – there is so much uncritical acceptance; more, that there's an attitude of respect, approval ... however you want to describe it.

No, I'd recommend it – and particularly this new edition, as the new forward takes on board things Hitchens never knew because at that time he had no access to her private letters, which have been released now and reveal a great deal.

Cheers for the heads up, duly down loaded.

Sorry for the derailment, any good challenging journalism that anyone would like to recommend I'd be grateful for. On the book thread of course.

Two things there. Firstly, the Bible like any other book is set within its cultural context and like any other person you are interpreting the story within your own cultural context. Secondly, that God sees something worth saving in the man who allows this could be interpreted in two ways: the way that you have interpreted it or as an indication that nobody is beyond hope (the way a Christian would interpret it). The latter point would be adopted while still acknowledging that today the notion of offering women to others is abhorent, as quite possibly it was back then also but we don't have a contemporary commentary on the story, just the story.


Nah, it really doesn't. To have any idea of the character of the Judeo-Christian god you would need to read the whole Bible. You would then be in a position to assess accurately what the story is about and whether God would condone the action of the man or condemn it.


As I said earlier, I am basing my assessment on those posts I have read. You will no doubt have read more of them. But from what I have read, I would put him in the Calvanist camp.

To be honest, thats the standard get-out clause for all christians together with "he moves in mysterious ways, etc", the undisputed fact of the matter is that the bible that you read from today is a mish-mash of opinion and camp fire tales and was not hand written by a God as a sort of Haynes Manual for you to follow implicitly.

Its an interesting book in parts though.

I have no issue with anyone who follows a religion of any description and in a way I actually admire them for their faith-without-question attitude, its not something I could do, but I do seriously question anyone who tries to endorse their blind faith with random examples picked deliberately to suit their agenda whilst ignoring the other tales which completely contradict what they are trying to sell - "Let the buyer beware" is never truer than when discussing religion, you get what the seller wants to sell you.